Jharkhand HC Quashes SC/ST Act Case After Informant Settles Private Dispute With Two Accused

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings in Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026.

The case involved alleged offences under Sections 316(4)(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 371(7), 115(2), 351(1), 352, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

At the hearing, investigation was ongoing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioners and the informant stated, supported by separate affidavits, that they had amicably settled their dispute following the intervention of village elders, and that the informant did not wish to pursue the case.

The State did not oppose quashing.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of a court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, which relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court noted that quashing on compromise is distinct from statutory compounding and depends on the facts of each case.

The High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence; heinous or serious offences and offences with a substantial societal impact ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

By contrast, where the dispute is predominantly private, the settlement is complete, the possibility of conviction is remote, and continuation would cause oppression or injustice, quashing may be appropriate to secure the ends of justice.

The Court treated the dispute as private and found that the offences in the case were neither heinous nor offences involving serious mental depravity.

It relied on the parties’ complete settlement and the informant’s stated wish not to pursue the case, and concluded that the prospect of conviction was remote and bleak.

In those circumstances, continuing the proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners and amount to injustice; the State’s lack of objection was also noted.

Interlocutory Application No. 15078 of 2026 was disposed of accordingly.